MA S TER 

NEGATIVE 
NO.  92-80620-14 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  .      t»    •    *» 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia.  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 


PRESCOTT,  HENRY  W. 


TITLE: 


THREE  PUER-SCENES 


PLACE: 


[BOSTON] 


DA  TE : 


1910 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


\t 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MTCROFORM  TARHFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


ia iM 


Acquisitions 


NYCG-PT 


BKS/3AVE      Books  FUL/BIB  ^     NYCG92-B34i02 

Record  1   of    0   -   SAVE    record 

ID: MYCG92-B341U2  R  FYP : a  3\ 

CC:9668      BLI:arn  DCF:?        CSC:?        MUD 

CP:mau  L:eng  INT:?        GPC:?        BIO 

PCis  PD:1910/  REP:?        CPI 

M'10:  OR:  POL:  DM:  RR: 

OAO  NNC|:cNNC 

luo   i        Prescott,    Henry  W. 

2^S    lu      Ihree   PULR -scenes    in    PJautiis,    and    Lhe   distribution    of    r  oiesf  hUnicrol  or 

fli  J  - 
260  (.Boston  J,|cl910. 

3U0  [311-50   p. 

urn  UiMG 

QO  uS-15-92 


FRN: 
SWU: 
I-IC:? 
F  S 1 :  •? 
COL: 


MS:        EL: 
AIC: 
CUM:??? 
ILC:???? 
bML: 


AD:05-i5-92 
UD:05-15-92 

II:? 
UEN:        BSE: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE:__3_5Wfrn^i.^__  REDUCTION     RATIO:  _    //"^ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    IA(UM    IR     IID 

DATE     FILMED:j^VC:^iv  _/__ INITIALS____ ^^^_ 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUDLICATIONS.  INC  WOODDRIDGe'ct 


!■■■ 


Association  for  inffomiation  and  image  iManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1100. 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 


1 


'' """""" "■MliMilim 


I  I  I 


Inches 


TTT 


5        6 

iiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


tt 


7        8 

iiiliiiiliiiilii 


mm 


9   10   11 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


TTT 


1.0 

i^      2.8 
1^    1  'I 

■  80 

n  m 

■UUta, 

1.4 

2.5 
2.2 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

I.I 

1.25 

12       13       14       15   mm 

iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


I  I  ITT 

5 


1 


MfiNUFflCTURED   TO   OHM   STRNDRRDS 
BY  APPLIED  IMRGE,    INC. 


THREE   PUER-SCE^ES  IN   PLAUTUS,  AND  THE 

DISTRIBUTION   OF   ROLES 

By  Henry  W.  Prescott 


Printed  from  the 
HARVARD  STUDIES  IN  CLASSICAL  PHILOLOGY 

Vol,  XXI,  igio 


I::     b| 


THREE   PU£I?-SCENES   IN   PLAUTUS,   AND   THE 
DISTRIBUTION   OF  ROLES 

By  Henry  W.  Prescott 

THE  rule  of  three  actors  in  the  classical  Greek  drama  has  recently 
been  severely  tested.  Such  a  restriction  may  well  have  been 
imposed  upon  managers  of  travelling  troupes.^  In  the  Roman  comedies 
a  larger  number  of  actors  is  required,  if  our  texts  represent  the  acting 
versions  of  the  plays.  Ancient  evidence,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  in  accord 
with  the  requirements  of  the  text.  After  sifting  this  external  evidence, 
Schmidt'^  in  1870  arranged  possible  distributions  of  parts  in  the  plays 
of  Plautus  and  Terence;  in  his  arrangements  he  considered  almost 
exclusively  coincident  appearances  of  speaking  characters  upon  the 
stage.  Schmidt's  results  have  been  generally  accepted  as  showing  the 
practicability  of  producing  the  extant  comedies  with  a  small  number  of 
actors,  varying  from  three  to  seven  in  the  different  plays.  The  opinion 
of  conservative  scholars,  probably,  finds  expression  in  Hauler's  comment 
on  Dziatzko's  cautious  statement  of  the  case  (Ter.  Phormio^^  34,  n.  4)  : 
"Untersuchungen  wie  von  Friedr.  Schmidt  .  .  .  halt  Dziatzko  insofem 
fur  wertvoll,  als  dadurch  festgestellt  wird,  mit  wie  vielen  Personen  ein 
Stiick  durchgefiihrt  werden  konnte  ....  Daraus  auf  eine  feste  Regel 
und  etwaige  Selbstbeschrankung  der  lateinischen  Dichter  bei  Komposi- 
tion  ihrer  Stucke  zu  schliessen,  wagt  er  [Dziatzko]  mit  Recht  nicht."* 

*  Rees,  The  So-called  Rule  of  Three  Actors  in  the  Classical  Greek  Drama^  64  ff . 

*  Ueber  die  Zahl  der  Schauspieler  bei  Plautus  und  Terenz  und  die  Vertheilung 
der  Rollen  unter  dieselben,  Erlangen,  1870.  Recent  discussions  of  the  theme  are 
limited  to  Terence,  and  particularly  in  connection  with  the  notae  personarum ;  for 
references  cf.  Dziatzko-Hauler,  Ter.  Phormio^^  34,  n.  4. 

^  This  scepticism  was  less  conservatively  expressed  in  Lorenz*s  review  of  Schmidt 
{Philol.  Anz.  V  [1873],  459  ff.),  and  by  Steffen  in  Acta  Soc.  Phil.  Lips,  II,  114  ff. 
Their  contention  is  that  the  whole  question  is  invalidated  by  the  fact  that  we  cannot 
discriminate  between  the  Greek  original  and  the  Roman  adaptation.  I  think  that  it 
is  quite  proper  to  study  our  texts  as  they  stand,  and  then  discover  if  the  scenes  in 
question  are  demonstrably  Greek  or  Roman.  In  the  present  case  the  conclusion  may 
seem  negative,  but  such  evidence  as  there  is  seems  to  me  to  point  to  Roman  sources 
for  the  three  scenes  under  discussion.  Cf.  below,  p.  36,  n.  3;  p.  39,  n.  2;  p.  45  and 
nn.  I,  3. 


f  I 


32 


Henry  W.  Prescott 


Audacious  as  it  may  be,  the  thought  will  occur  to  any  student  of  the 
drama  that  plays  produced  by  a  limited  number  of  actors  may  reveal 
in  their  composition  the  effects  of  this  limitation,  especially  if  the  play- 
wright is  a  craftsman  of  very  moderate  ability.    And  even  a  consummate 
artist  may  at  times  be  forced  to  make  concessions  which  his  art  cannot 
conceal.    The  consideration  of  the  plays  from  this  standpoint  is  not  only 
not  audacious,  but  essential  to  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  question. 
The  audacity  consists  in  drawing  conclusions  from  insufficient  evidence, 
and  this  is  all  that  Hauler  means.     Naturally  students  of  the  Greek 
drama  have  sought  confirmation  of  the  rule  of  three  actors  in  the  struc- 
ture of  the  tragedies ;  ^  perhaps  they  have  seen  too  much,  but,  granting 
the  theory,  their  attitude  was  justifiable.     Schmidt,  on  the  contrary, 
makes  no  account  of  internal  evidence  in  this  sense  of  the  term :  he 
does  quote  Poen.  123,  126  (ego  ibo,  omabor ;  .  .  .  ibo,  alius  nunc  fien 
void),  but  one  of  the  two  verses  is  probably  the  work  of  a  retractator, 
and  at  best  the  passage  proves  only  that  the  prologus  did  not  require  a 
separate  actor ;  Schmidt  also  speculates  (p.  9)  as  to  what  Plautus  could 
not  do  —  he  could  not  present  dramatically  the  joy  of  the  wives  in  the 
Stichus  over  the  return  of  their  husbands,  because  two  actors  carried  the 
four  roles,  nor  could  he  let  the  audience  see  the  reconciliation  of  the 
father  and  the  son  in  the  Bacchides,  if  one  actor  played  both  parts ; 
such  speculation  is  of  negative  value,  and  tends  to  indulgence  in  idle 
fancies.     What  kind  of  internal  evidence  is  available  for  our  purpose? 

On  p.  13  Schmidt  (accepting  the  rule  of  three  actors  for  the  Greek 
drama)  remarks  that  the  presence  of  the  chorus  in  the  classical  tragedy 
and  comedy  facilitated  change  of  roles ;  in  the  later  Greek  drama,  he 
adds,  the  chorus  disappeared ;  more  characters  have  to  appear,  "  und 
so  mehrere  Zwischenscenen  entstehen";  new  actors  appear  in  these 
"Zwischenscenen,"  and  the  other  actors  have  an  opportunity  to  change 
roles.  We  now  know  that  the  chorus  did  not  entirely  disappear  from 
the  later  comedy,  and  perhaps  traces  of  it  survive  even  in  Roman 
comedy,*  but  Schmidt's  statement  of  the  case  applies  as  an  df  pnori 
description  to  our  plays.     A  skilful  dramatist,  if  limited  to  a  few  actors. 


»  Cf.,  for  example,  Elmsley  in  Class.  Jour,  VIII  (1813),  433  ff. 
«  For  survivals  of  the  chorus,  and  substitutes  for  it,  cf.  Leo,  Der  Monolog  im 
Drama,  43,  44;  44t  »».  I  and  2;   50,  n.  6;  59,  n.  2. 


Three  Vuer-Scenes  in  Plautus,  and  the  Distribution  ef  Roles     33 

will  so  arrange  his  scenes  as  to  provide  for  the  shifting  of  r61es,  and 
often  without  much  difficulty.  The  ease  with  which  it  may  be  ac- 
complished is  clear  enough,  if  Schmidt's  thesis  is  accepted,  from  the 
comedies.  In  fact,  a  dramatist  is  so  little  hampered  by  the  necessity  of 
distributing  a  dozen  roles  among  half  a  dozen  actors  that  internal  con- 
ditions need  seldom  reveal  indisputable  cases  of  concession  to  this 
economical  device.  For  we  may  not  accept  evidence  unless  it  proves 
that  the  roles  must  have  been  distributed :  the  mere  possibility  has  been 
demonstrated  by  Schmidt.  Accordingly,  the  "Zwischenscenen"  must 
be  of  a  very  peculiar  character  to  serve  our  purpose ;  any  play  given  by 
a  complete  cast  with  a  single  role  for  each  actor  may  show  "Zwischen- 
scenen" of  the  same  sort  as  most  of  those  in  Roman  comedy — for  any 
dramatist  will  be  likely  to  arrange  a  certain  amount  of  alternation  in  the 
appearance  of  characters  or  groups  of  characters.  If,  however,  we  can 
discover  scenes  or  passages  peculiar  in  the  sense  that  no  reasonable 
explanation  of  their  peculiarities  exists  outside  of  the  limitation  imposed 
by  a  small  troupe,  such  evidence  will  be  of  primary  value. 

Such  evidence,  if  discovered,  will  be  quite  independent  of  external 
evidence  and  of  Schmidt's  entire  thesis.  But  if  the  evidence  of  primary 
importance  is  convincing,  we  may  properly  take  up  secondary  evidence : 
that  is,  we  may  now  assume  Schmidt's  arrangements  of  roles  to  be 
correct,  and  proceed  to  test  them.  This  seems  an  obvious  thing  to  do ; 
yet  Schmidt  made  no  effort  in  this  direction.  He  tested  them  only 
with  reference  to  coincident  appearances,  referring  occasionally  to  har- 
mony of  roles.  But  simple  practical  tests  are  at  hand.  If  in  a  given 
play  Schmidt  thinks  there  were  five  actors  in  the  cast,  and  if  in  a 
succession  of  two  scenes,  one  requires  five  speaking  roles,  and  the  other 
a  role  not  included  in  the  five,  the  structure  must  reveal  the  opportunity 
given  to  change  roles.  If  in  the  same  play  in  a  succession  of  two 
scenes  one  requires  four  parts  and  the  other  three  parts  distinct  from 
the  four,  Schmidt's  theory  is  immediately  tested.  Now  such  conditions 
do  exist  in  the  plays ;  the  cases  are  not  many  in  number,  but  they  all 
corroborate  the  general  theory  of  a  limited  number  of  actors,  and  either 
correct  or  confirm,  to  some  extent,  Schmidt's  arrangements  of  roles.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that  such  evidence  or  tests  never 
carry  us  beyond  the  standpoint  of  Dziatzko.  Only  the  primary  evidence, 
if  it  is  convincing  to  others  as  it  is  to  me,  will  lead  us  to  modify 


34 


Menry  W,  Prescott 


Dziatzko's  conservatism  as  Hauler  interprets  it.  If  my  conclusions  are 
correct,  internal  evidence  shows  that  the  Miles  GloHosus,  the  Captivt, 
and  the  Pseudolus  were  in  their  present  form  intended  for  production 
by  a  relatively  small  number  of  actors;  Dziatzko^s  (or  Hauler's)  ^^ could 
have  been  produced"  becomes  m  these  three  cases  ''must  have  been 
produced."  Furthermore,  the  evidence  in  these  three  cases  shows  that 
the  author  of  any  one  of  these  plays  in  its  present  form  (whether 
Plautus  or  not  I  do  not  yet  care  to  say)  was  subjected  to  a  certam 
"Selbstbeschrankung."  This  is  the  important  point,  not  that  the  roles 
were  distributed  among  a  few  actors,  but  that  the  present  form  of  the 
Latin  comedies  was  affected  by  this  concession  to  economy. 


The  last  two  acts  of  the  Miles  are  parts  of  a  harmonious  whole.     No 
theory  of  contamination^  seriously  affects  their  integrity.     In  them  the 
second  and  final  intrigue  against  the  miles  is  successfully  accomplished. 
A  fictitious  wife  of  Periplectomenus  is  represented  to  have  fallen  in  love 
with  the  miles  ;  the  new  affair  necessitates  the  withdrawal  of  the  former 
sweetheart,  Philocomasium  —  an  issue  which  satisfies  her  lover,  Pleu- 
sicles,  and  the  arch-intriguer,  Palaestrio.     The  fourth  act  carries  the 
intrigue  up  to  the  catastrophe ;  the  fifth  act  reveals  the  catastrophe. 
In  the  action  of  the  fourth  act  two  circumstances  are  of  importance  in 
our  present  study.   In  the  first  place,  Milphidippa,  posing  as  the  servant 
of  the  wife,  is  clearly  presented  as  a  go-between ;  it  is  she  who  makes 
the  advances  in  IV,  2,  and  brings  him  a  ring  from  the  wife  (1048-9) ; 
in  IV,  6  she  appears  with  the  wife  as  her  confidante ;  in  both  places  her 
part  is  important,  and  her  activity  the  conventional  role  of  the  servant 
or  nurse  in  Hellenistic  love-stories.     In  the  second  place,  an  important 
fact  comes  out  in  her  words  in  1277  ;  the  miles  inquires  how  he  is  to 
gratify  his  new  sweetheart  when  her  husband  is  still  in  the  field ;  quin 
tua  caussa  exegit  virum  ab  se,  is  the  servant's  answer ;  there  is,  then, 
no  obstacle  to  the  new  amour  save  the  presence  of  Philocomasium. 
Act  IV,  8  removes  this  obstacle ;  m  this  scene  Philocomasium,  Pleu- 


»  Cf.  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  161  ff.,  and  the  references  in  n.  3,  adding  Hasper,  de 
compositione  Militis  Gloriosi,  Festschrift  d.  44-  Versammlung  deutsch,  Phil,  und 
Schulm.y  pp.  335  ff.,  Dresden,  1897,  and  Kakridis,  Rh.  Mus.,  $9  (i904)»  626. 


,. 


Three  Vuer- Scenes  in  Plautus ^  and  the  Distribution  of  Roles     35 

sides,  Palaestrio,  and  Pyrgopolinices  appear;  the  first  two  retire  at 
V.  1353  ;  the  miles,  left  behind  with  Palaestrio,  expresses  his  apprecia- 
tion of  the  slave's  services,  and  is  with  difficulty  persuaded  not  to  retain 
Palaestrio  in  his  employ;  Palaestrio  retires  in  v.  1373.  In  1373-6  the 
miles  soliloquizes  further  on  Palaestrio' s  faithfulness ;  he  then  says :  ibo 
hinc  intra  nunciam  ad  amores  meos  (1376-7).  The  action  thus  far 
makes  it  quite  natural  that  he  should  immediately  carry  out  this  purpose, 
but  instead  of  doing  so  he  hears  the  noise  of  an  opening  door :  a  piur 
appears,  and  the  following  scene  (IV,  9)  takes  place  : 

PvER  Pyrgopolinices 

Pv.   ne  me  moneatis  :  memini  ego  officium  meum ; 

ego  t  nam  t  conueniam  ilium,  ubi  ubist  gentium ; 

inuestigabo,  operae  non  parco  meae.  18» 

Py.   me  quaerit  illic  :  ibo  huic  puero  obuiam. 

Pv.   ehem,  te  quaero  :  salue,  uir  lepidissume, 

cumulate  commoditate,  praeter  ceteros 

duo  di  quem  curant.     Py.   qui  duo?     Pv.  Mars  et  Venus. 

Py.  facetum  puerum.     Pv.   intro  te  ut  eas  opsecrat :         M8i 

te  uolt,  te  quaerit  teque  expectans  expetit. 

amanti  fer  opem.     quid  stas?    quin  intro  is?     Py.   eo. — 

Pv.   ipsus  illic  sese  iam  inpediuit  in  plagas. 

paratae  insidiae  sunt :  in  statu  stat  senex, 

ut  adoriatur  moechum,  qui  formast  ferox,  M» 

qui  omnis  se  amare  credit,  quaeque  aspexerit 

mulier :  eum  oderunt  qua  uiri  qua  mulieres. 

nunc  in  tumultum  ibo  :  intus  clamorem  audio. 

The  next  scene  (V,  i)  requires  four  speaking  characters,  the  largest 
number  required  in  any  scene  of  the  play ;  they  are  Periplectomenus, 
Pyrgopolinices,  Cario,  and  a  lorarius ;  in  1427  a  fifth  appears, 
Sceledrus. 

What  is  the  purpose  of  the  /«<?r-scene  (IV,  9)  ?  Its  function  is  cleat 
in  one  respect :  the  action  requires  that  the  miles  shall  retire  into  the 
house  of  Periplectomenus,  that  a  short  period  of  time  shall  elapse 
thereafter  to  provide  for  the  denouement  of  V,  i ;  this  lapse  of  time  is 
covered  by  the  monologue  of  the  puer  in  1388-93.    To  provide  this 


Jo 


Henry  W.  Prescott 


monologue  the  puer  is  brought  upon  the  stage  m  1378-87.     Otherwise 
the  scene  is  immaterial  to  the  action.    But  at  once  the  question  arises : 
why  is  a  puer  employed  for  this  purpose  ?     He  appears  nowhere  else  m 
the  play.     Furthermore,  the  part  of  go-between  which  he  plays  here 
has  already  been  clearly  defined  as  the  r61e  of  Milphidippa.     No  ex- 
planation of  this  duplication  of  parts  is  available,  save  the  fact  that  the 
actor  who  played  the  role  of  Milphidippa  was  needed  for  one  of  the 
characters  that  appeared  in  the  first  scene  of  the  fifth  act.^     This 
character  could  not  have  been  Periplectomenus  (unless,  as  Schmidt 
thinks,  a  supernumerary  took  Milphidippa's  silent  part  in  III,  3)  or  the 
miles  (for  Milphidippa  and  the  miles  appear  together  in  other  scenes)  ; 
the  part  either  of  Cario  or  of  the  lorarius,  however,  might  have  been 
combined  with  the  role  of  Milphidippa.^    Our  study  makes  impossible 
Schmidt's  (reluctant)  assignment  of  the  puer  and  Milphidippa  to  one 
actor.' 


»  It  might  be  objected  that  I  have  proved  at  best  only  that  the  scene-heading 
should  read  Milphidippa  instead  of  Puer;  but  this  summary  dismissal  of  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  scene  will  not  seem  so  plausible  when  we  find  two  other  /«^r-scenes  m 
which  no  such  solution  is  possible. 

•  The  structure  of  the  scene  preceding  the /«/?r-scene  seems  to  make  further  provi- 
sion for  changes:  Philocomasium  and  Pleusicles  retire  in  1353;  after  a  stationary 
scene  Palaestrio  retires  in  1373;  the  /«^-scene  gives  Palaestrio  time  to  change  his 
role;  that  is,  the  structure,  perhaps,  releases  three  of  the  cast  that  they  may  take 
new  r61es  in  V,  i .  Note  also  that  the  appearance  of  Sceledrus  in  1427  would  enable 
the  puer  to  take  that  part  unless  the/«^r  remained  on  the  stage  after  1393 :  «««^  »» 
tumultum  iho  (1393)  seems  to  point  to  his  withdrawal.     Most  of  this,  however,  is 

secondary  evidence. 

3  Schmidt  {pp,  cit.y  31)  assigns  Periplectomenus,  Milphidippa,  and  the  puer  to  one 
actor,  regardless  both  of  the  conditions  described  above  and  also  of  the  fact  that  the 
puer  and  Periplectomenus  appear  in  successive  scenes.    This  latter  combination  he 
would,  presumably,  justify  on  the  ground  that  the  end  of  an  act  intervenes;    this 
assumption  of  a  pause  between  acts  he  uses  elsewhere  for  simUar  purposes.     But  in 
many  cases  the  assumption  is  demonstrably  false.     As  everybody  knows  the  act- 
divisions  are  late;    the  theory  of  acts  is  also  late;   there  is,  however,  a  possibility, 
supported  by  the  historical  development  of  the  form,  that  the  structure  of  the  action 
was  affected  by  the  t^pr^,  the  parts  that  resulted  during  and  after  the  disappearance  of 
the  chorus  ("  Es  unterliegt  aber  gar  keinem  Zweifel  und  wird  durch  die  dramatische 
Technik  aller  Zeiten  bestatigt,  dass  fur  die  Fuhrung  der  Handlung  die  Sonderung  der 
TeUe  etwas  wesentliches  ist " ;   Leo,  i?^^  Monolog.  5 1 )  •     The  assumption  of  a  pause 
between  acts,  or  lUpn.  according  to  Leo's  divisions,  rests  largely  on  Pseud.  573^ 


t 


Three  Tucr-Scenes  in  PlautuSy  and  the  Distribution  of  Roles     37 

II 

The  mere  statement  of  the  case  for  the  Miles  may  not  be  convincing ; 
if,  however,  all //i^r-scenes  of  this  type  (that  is,  in  which  dipuer  appears 
as  a  speaking  character  without  contributing  to  the  action  and  without 
serving  any  purpose  outside  the  scene  in  question)  lead  us  to  the  same 
conclusion,  the  argument  is  materially  strengthened.  There  are  only 
two  other  puer-scenes  in  our  sense  of  the  term  in  Plautus  :  the  puer  of 
Bacch,  Frag.  X  (XVII)  is  an  invention  of  the  editors,  and  in  any  case 
the  fragmentary  passage  does  not  admit  discussion  of  the  puet^^  role ; 
Paegnium  in  the  Persa  is  a  puer  according  to  the  scene-headings  of  D 
(cf.  193),  but  the  scenes  (II,  2,  4)  are  essential  to  the  action;  the 
puer  in  Poen,  1141  is  an  invention  of  Angelius,  and  speaks  only  an 
incidental  word  or  two ;  Pinacium  in  the  Stichus  is  a  puer  according  to 
the  scene-headings  in  B  and  D  in  II,  i,  and  in  D  in  II,  2  (cf.  270), 
but  contributes  to  the  action ;  in  the  Mostellaria  Sphaerio  puer  (cf. 
419)  appears  in  the  scene-heading  of  D  after  v.  407,  but  he  has  only 
two  verses  and  plays  a  small  part  in  the  action.  As  puer-scenes  there 
remain  only  Captivi,  IV,  4,  and  Pseudolus,  III,  i. 

The  action  of  the  Captivi  has  reached  the  point  where  Hegio's  dis- 
tress at  having  released  Philocrates  is  unexpectedly  relieved  by  the 
news  that  Philocrates  has  returned,  bringing  the  son,  Philopolemus,  and 


which  points  to  a  musical  interlude.  Such  an  interval  as  that  in  Asin.  809-10  seems 
to  require  either  a  pause  between  scenes  (unless  there  is  a  lacuna)  or  a  dance  or 
music.  Note  also  Ter.  Andria  171-2,  unless  Simo  remains  on  the  stage.  All  these 
situations  naturally  remind  us  of  the  x^P^s  ii*  the  New  Greek  Comedy  as  revealed  in 
the  text  of  Menander.  How  did  the  Roman  writers  manage  the  situation  when  the 
stage  was  left  vacant  by  the  text  of  their  Greek  originals  except  for  the  x^P^*  which 
was  not  so  easily  available  in  the  Roman  comedies?  Cure.  462  ff.  and  Capt.  461  ff. 
show  situations  similar  to  those  in  the  Asin.  and  Andria  with  the  gaps  filled  by  sta- 
tionary scenes;  is  this  Plautine,  or  at  least  Roman,  technique,  or  were  there  sudi 
scenes  in  the  Greek  original  (cf .  p.  39,  n.  2)  ?  In  any  case  is  it  not  clear  that  we 
have  no  right  to  assume  pauses  unless  the  text  forces  it  upon  us?  Finally  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  the  /w^r-scenes  discussed  above  make  untenable  a  theory  of  pause  of  any 
appreciable  length  between  the  acts  in  these  three  cases;  for  all  justification  for  the 
scenes  disappears  as  soon  as  we  assume  a  pause  between  the  acts  which  would  have 
in  itself  sufficed  for  changing  rdles.  On  the  whole  matter  of  acts,  fi^pi?,  etc.,  cf.  Leo, 
Plaut.  Forsch.j  205  f!.,  Der  Monolog^  28;  49  ff.;  44  and  n.  2;  50  and  nn.  5  and  6; 
57»  n-  3;   59»  n.  2. 


JB 


Henry  W,  Prescott 


T 


a  slave,  Stalagmns;  the  bearer  of  this  news  is  the  parasite  Ergasilus 
(IV,  2).  Hegio  must  go  at  once  to  the  harbor  to  see  his  son.  As  a 
reward  he  gives  Ergasilus  the  freedom  of  the  pantry,  and  leaves  the 
stage  at  v.  900.  Ergasflus,  before  going  into  Hegio's  house,  anticipates 
in  a  monologue  the  joy  of  devastating  the  larder  (901-908).  He  then 
goes  into  the  house ;  perhaps  a  short  interval  foUows,  covered  by  the 
crash  of  platters  within  (Lindsay,  ad  loc)  ;  then  ^puer  comes  out  from 
the  house  of  Hegio  and  describes  the  havoc  Ergasilus  is  making  withm 

(IV,  4)  : 

PVER 

Diespiter  te  dique,  Ergasile,  perdant  et  uentrem  tuom 
parasitosque  omnis  et  qui  posthac  cenam  parasitis  dabit.  9io 

clades  calamitasque,  intemperies  modo  in  nostram  aduenit  domum. 
quasi  lupus  essuriens  metui  ne  in  me  faceret  inpetum. 
ubi  voltus  .  .  sur  .  .  ntis  .  .  .  impetum.  »i2a 

nimisque  hercle  ego  ilium  male  formidabam,  ita  frendebat  dentibus. 
adueniens  deturbauit  totum  cum  cami  camarium  : 
arripuit  gladium,  praetruncauit  tribus  tegoribus  glandia ; 
aulas  caUcesque  omnis  confregit,  nisi  quae  modiales  erant. 
coquom  percontabatur  possentne  seriae  feruescere. 
cellas  refregit  omnis  intus  recclusitque  armarium, 
adservate  istunc,  sultis,  servi.     ego  ibo  ut  conveniam  senem, 
dicam  ut  sibi  penum  aliud  [ad]ornet,  siquidem  sese  uti  volet ; 
nam  hie  quidem  ut  adornat  aut  iam  nihil  est  aut  iam  nihil  erit. 

The  puer  goes  off  to  find  Hegio.  In  the  next  scene  (V,  i)  Hegio 
appears  with  Philocrates,  Philopolemus,  and  Stalagmus ;  Stalagmus  does 
not  speak  until  v.  955,  but  is  present  from  the  beginning  of  the  scene. 
The  number  of  roles  required  is  the  largest  demanded  by  any  scene  m 

the  play.  . 

A  partial  justification  for  the  puer^scene  is  at  once  available.  Obvi- 
ously the  interval  between  Hegio's  departure  (900)  and  his  return 
(922)  must  be  filled;  the  action  of  the  play  has  advanced  too  far  to 
develop  any  feature  of  the  plot;  the  only  recourse  is  a  stationary  scene 
or  scenes ;  accordingly  the  monologue  of  Ergasilus  and  that  of  the  puer 
appear  to  fill  the  interval.     But  why  the  monologue  of  the  puer?     He 


915 


920 


1 


r:^ 


%H 


'' 


Three  Tuer-Scenes  in  Plautus^  and  the  Distribution  of  Roles     39 

appears  nowhere  else  in  the  play.^  Why  should  not  the  monologue  of 
Ergasilus  be  expanded  to  twenty-two  verses,  instead  of  dividing  the 
stop-gap  between  two  characters,  the  second  of  whom  is  of  no  service 
elsewhere  in  the  play?  The  poet  is  not  usually  averse  to  expanding 
indefinitely  a  parasite's  monologue :  witness  III,  i  of  this  play  (cL 
Men,  446  ff.)  —  there  again  the  interval  of  Hegio's  absence  (460-498) 
must  be  filled,  and  Ergasilus  soliloquizes  for  thirty-seven  verses.  Clearly 
the  puer-scene  calls  for  further  explanation.  The  fact  that  it  takes  the 
place  of  an  extension  of  Ergasilus's  monologue  suggests  the  explanation : 
the  actor  who  played  the  role  of  Ergasilus  was  needed  for  one  of  the 
characters  that  appeared  in  the  first  scene  of  the  fifth  act ;  the  puer- 
scene  gives  Ergasilus  time  to  change  his  role.^ 

Ill 

It  has  probably  not  escaped  the  reader's  notice  that  these  two  puer- 
scenes  come  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  act,  just  before  a  scene  in  which 
the  largest  number  of  actors  is  required ;  that  is,  no  other  scenes  of  the 
two  plays  require  more  than  four  speaking  characters.  We  are  not  to 
infer  that  the  troupe  consisted  of  four  actors,  but  it  is  significant  that  as 
the  playwright  approaches  the  conclusion  of  his  play  the  difficulties  of 
concealing  his  concession  to  economy  are  greatest ;  the  threads  of  the 
plot  have  run  out ;    stationary  scenes  and  a  puer  ex  machina  are  his 


*  Weise,  die  Komodien  des  Plaut.  kritisch  nach  Inhalt  und  Form  beUtuhtet^  76 
(as  quoted  by  Langen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  123),  rejects  the  puer-scene  because  the  ptter 
does  not  appear  again,  and  does  not  here  promote  the  action.  Langen,  /.  c,  properly 
demurs,  reminding  us  that  the  entire  role  of  Ei^asilus  is  immaterial  to  the  action,  but 
that  the  authenticity  of  his  speeches  is  not  open  to  question. 

*  Schmidt,  op.  cit.y  24:  "  Endlich  ist  noch  der  schnurrige  Parasit  Ergasilus  und  der 
verschmitzte  Sclave  Stalagmus  fur  den  vierten  Schauspieler  iibrig;  ..."  Note  the 
harmony  of  roles. 

Leo  {Der  Afonohgy  59  and  n.  2)  appreciates  some  of  the  features:  he  compares 
the  parasite's  monologue  in  461  ff.  and  suggests  that  the  two  monologues  of  the 
parasite,  like  the  speech  of  the  choragus  in  the  Curculio^  take  the  place  of  a  x^P'*'^  i° 
the  Greek  original;  the  choragus-szevLe^  he  says,  is  positively  Roman;  the  monologue 
in  Capt.  461  ff.  has  no  Attic  coloring,  and  shows  a  Roman  source  in  476,  489;  the 
monologue  of  the  puer  is  neutral.  This  suggestion  gains  in  force  when  we  remember 
that  the  part  played  by  the  puer  in  the  dramatic  economy  of  the  piece  has  no  analogy 
in  Euripides  or  in  Greek  comedy. 


if 


40 


Henry  W,  Prescott 


only  resort.  The  third  puer-^tne,  however,  shows  that  this  is  not  the 
only  condition  that  led  a  playwright  to  reveal  the  limitation  imposed 
upon  him  :  a  small  troupe  offers  little  variety  in  the  way  of  physical  or 
temperamental  peculiarities ;  the  shift  of  roles  in  the  Pseudolus  was 
probably  occasioned  by  the  fact  that  one  actor  was  especially  adapted 

to  two  similar  roles.* 

The  Pseudolus,  like  the  Miles,  is  a  victim  of  the  contamination- 
theory.'  In  this  case  we  cannot  escape  some  consideration  of  this 
factor.  I  think,  however,  that  it  will  be  clear  that  my  argument  is  not 
affected  by  any  theory  of  contamination  so  long  as  I  am  not  as  yet 
raising  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  any  of  these  scenes. 

Act  I,  2,  Ballio,  a  leno,  is  on  his  way  to  the  market-place  (163)  ;  he 
is  attended  by  a  puer  (170,  241,  242,  249,  252,  263),  who  does  not 
speak  in  the  course  of  the  second  and  third  scenes.  In  the  following 
scenes,  up  to  the  beginning  of  act  III,  the  intrigue  is  partially  developed. 
At  the  end  of  the  second  act  (II,  4),  after  a  short  monologue,  Pseudo- 
lus goes  to  the  market-place  (764).  At  the  beginning  of  the  third  act 
a  /a^'r  appears,  and  delivers  the  following  monologue  (767-789)  : 

PVER 

quoi  seruitutem  di  danunt  lenoniam 
puero,  atque  eidem  si  addunt  turpitudinem, 
ne  illi,  quantum  ego  nunc  corde  conspicio  meo, 
malam  rem  magnam  multasque  aerumnas  danunt. 
velut  haec  mihi  euenit  seruitus,  ubi  ego  omnibus 
paruis  magnisque  miseriis  praefulcior : 
neque  ego  amatorem  mihi  inuenire  ullum  queo 
qui  amet  me,  ut  curer  tandem  nitidiuscule. 
nunc  huic  lenoni  hodiest  natalis  dies  : 
interminatust  a  minimo  ad  maxumum, 
siquis  non  hodie  munus  misisset  sibi, 
eum  eras  cruciatu  maxumo  perbitere. 


m 


ns 


»  The  importance  of  this  factor  has  been  interestingly  elaborated  by  Rees,  op»  cit.^ 

53  ff. 

*  Bierma,   Quaestiones  de  Plautina  Pseudolo,   1897.     Leo,  NachrichUn  d,   Gdi- 

Hngen  Ges.,  1903.     Karsten,  Mnemosyne^  31  (i903)»  I30- 


I 


Three  Vucr-Scenes  in  Plautus,  and  the  Distribution  of  Rdles     41 


780 


m 


nunc  nescio  hercle  rebus  quid  faciam  meis : 

neque  ego  illud  possum  quod  illi  qui  possunt  solent. 

nunc,  nisi  lenoni  munus  hodie  misero, 

eras  mihi  potandus  fructus  est  fullonius. 

eheu,  quam  illae  rei  ego  etiam  nunc  sum  paruolus. 

atque  edepol  ut  nunc  male  malum  metuo  miser, 

si  quispiam  det  qui  manus  grauior  siet, 

quamquam  illud  aiunt  magno  gemitu  fieri, 

comprimere  dentes  uideor  posse  aliquo  modo. 

sed  comprimenda  est  mihi  uox  atque  oratio : 

ems  eccum  recipit  se  domum  et  ducit  coquom. 


It  will  be  noticed  that  this  puer  does  not  announce  whence  he  comes ; 
his  concluding  words  (788-789)  do  not  show  whether  he  goes  off,  or 
remains  on  the  stage.  If  we  had  the  scene  without  its  context  we 
should  certainly  suppose  that  the  puer  came  out  from  the  house  of 
Ballio  in  767,  and  retired  into  it  in  789,  after  announcing  his  master's 
approach.  In  the  next  scene  (III,  2)  Ballio  returns  from  the  market- 
place with  a  cook ;  the  scene-headings  in  B  and  D  represent  a  puer  as 
present  in  this  scene;  in  855-864  of  this  scene  Ballio  addresses  some- 
body, evidently  a  slave ;  inasmuch  as  in  Act  I,  2  he  was  attended  by  a 
puer,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  person  addressed  is  the  puer 
of  I,  2.  In  vv.  891-892  somebody  says  :  quin  tu  is  accubitum,  et  con- 
vivas  cedo,  corrumpitur  iam  cena.  These  words  are  assigned  by  Bothe 
and  all  recent  editors  to  the  puer;  BCD  assign  them,  wrongly  (cf. 
893),  to  the  cook.     In  the  following  scene  (IV,  i)  Pseudolus  returns. 

The  first  question  is :  is  the  puer  of  I,  2  identical  with  the  puer  of 
III,  I?  Clearly  the  birthday-motif  of  I,  2  is  resumed  in  III,  i.  It  is 
quite  conceivable  that  this  motif  is  a  weak  echo  from  one  of  the  plays 
used  in  the  process  of  contamination.  Again  it  is  quite  conceivable 
that  III,  I  is  an  interpolation  in  which  the  interpolator  has  clumsily 
availed  himself  of  the  birthday-motif  suggested  in  I,  2 ;  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  puer  is  the  puer  of  I,  2  ;  if  this  was  the  intention  of  the 
interpolator  he  has  strangely  neglected  to  make  clear  the  idenrity ;  the 
language  of  the  puer  in  III,  i  certainly  suggests  that  he  simply  comes 
out  of  Ballio's  house  at  the  opening  of  the  scene  and  retires  at  the  close 
of  the  same  scene.    Finally  we  must  admit,  I  think,  that  it  is  reasonable 


42 


Henry  W.  Prescott 


to  suppose  that  the  puer  of  I,  2  is  the  person  addressed  in  855  ff. 
The  action  of  I,  2  and  of  III,  2  is  consistent,  and  the  characters  in  the 
two  scenes  belong  to  one  consistent  line  of  action :  Ballio  goes  off  to 
the  market  with  a  puer  to  provide  for  his  birthday-party  (cf.  165-169), 
and  in  III,  2  returns  with  the  puer  and  the  cook.  With  this  action 
III,  I  is  imperfectly  connected. 

But,  however  these  questions  are  answered,  I  simply  start  with  the 
assumption  that  the  present  text  represents  an  acting  version  of  a  play 
produced  in  Plautus^s  time  or  later :  in  this  acting  version  what  is  the 
raison  d'  Ore  of  the  puer-sctnt,  III,  i  ? 

In  1858  Sauppe*  noted  that  both  III,  i  and  2  are  not  connected 
with  the  action  of  the  play,  and  offered  as  an  explanation  the  desire  of 
the  poet  to  amuse  the  populace.     Lorenz,"  much  more  properly,  ex- 


»  Leo,  however  (critical  note  on  767),  objects:  "...  versus  855  sq.  ad puerum 
hac  aetate  non  quadrant,  cf .  1 70,  241 ."     I  admit  that  I  hardly  understand  the  objec- 
tion or  the  references.     V.  170  (*,  puere,  prae ;  ne  quisquam  pertundat  crummam 
cautiost),  if  it  means  that  the  puer  is  in  any  way  a  protection  against  thieves,  would 
seem  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  directions  of  855  ff.     If  Leo  means  merely  to  mclude 
both  passages  as  evidence  that  the  action  is  suggestive  of  an  older  person,  I  cannot 
follow  him.     If  Leo  is  simply  defending  his  theory  of  interpolation,  I  fully  agree  with 
Mm  to  this  extent:   the  puer  is  a  puer  delicatus  (773  «•)  i«  I"'  i,  and  to  some 
extent  his  age  is  thereby  defined;  but  the  puer  of  I,  2  and  III,  2  is  simply  the  ira« 
of  Greek  comedy,  and  the  action  assigned  to  him  in  I,  2  and  in  III,  2  is  appropriate 
for  a  young  and  probably  sturdy  slave  whose  age  is  not  defined  precisely  by  the  term 
puer  in  a  technical  sense.     Lorenz  seems  to  me  to  be  altogether  correct  {PhiloL,  35 
[1876],  173),  in  speaking  of  the /i^  of  III,  i:  " der /«.r  hat  sonst  gar  nichts im 
Stucke  zu  thun;  denn  der  855  angeredete  ist  der  pedisequos  Ballio's." 

«  Quaestiones  Plautinae,  8 :  "  Haec  vero  scena  et  quae  sequitur  cum  fabulae  totius 
argumento  parum  cohaerent  nee  si  deessent  desiderarentur.  Sed,  nisi  faUor,  et  similis 
huius  puer  et  coquus  in  alia  f abula.  an  dicam  in  pluribus,  plebeculae  ita  placuerant,  ut 
poeta  personas  spectatoribus  gratissimas  etiam  huic  fabulae  risus  captandi  causa  praeter 

necessitatem  adderet."  .  ,  .     ^     ^  , 

a  Pseudolus,  Einl.  12:  "Die  hierra  nothige  Zwischenzeit  wird  in  der  Oekonomie 
des  Stiickes  ausgefullt  durch  zwei  episodische  Scenen  ....*'     Cf.  ibid.,  24. 

Ibid.,  24,  n.  23:  "  So  nothwendig  und  gut  angebracht  diese  Scene  [III,  2]  1st,  so 
wenig  nothwendig  und  so  schlecht  ausgefiihrt  erscheint  die  siebente  [III,  i].  Es  ist 
nicht  abzusehen,  was  den  Plautus  bewogen  haben  soUte,  nach  der  im  ersten  Canticum 
n  2l  gegebenen  grossen  Schilderung  der  Zustande  im  Hause  des  leno,  noch  erne 
gaLx  unmotivirte  Fortsetzung  derselben  hier  zu  geben,  und  zwar  eine  der  widerhchsten 
Art.    Der  puer  ist  sofort  nach  derselben  wieder  verschoUen :  denn  der  833  [=  855  J 


n 


ii 


Three  Yyi^x-Scenes  in  Plautus,  and  the  Distribution  of  Rdles     43 

plained  the  two  scenes  as  a  stop-gap  to  fill  the  interval  of  time  between 
Pseudolus's  departure   (766)  and  his  return  (905);    and  with  even 
greater  propriety  noted  that  this  justification  could  not  apply  to  the 
/«.r-scene;   he  declares  that  III,  i  is  an  unpardonable  repetition  of 
the  description  of  conditions  in  the  leno'^  house  already  given  m  I,  2, 
and  says  that  he  should  be  glad  to  believe  that  the  entire  puer-sctnt  is 
a  later  interpolation  by  an  actor's  hand  to  please  the  audience.     Leo 
(critical  note  on  767)  agrees  that  it  is  an  interpolation  -ut  in  acitone 
in  vicem  succederet  scaenae  I,  2."^     Several  accepted  facts  are  import- 
ant in  our  study  :  a  stop-gap  to  fill  the  interval  of  time  is  necessary- 
that  is  furnished  sufficiently  by  III,  2  j  the  desire  to  amuse  the  audience 
by  stationaiy  cook-scenes  is   characteristic  both  of   the  New  Greek 
Comedy  and  of  Plautus  — but  the  /^^r-scene  supplies  no  such  enter- 
tainment.     All  the  natural  requirements  are  satisfied  by  III,  2 ;  III,  i 
is  apparently  superfluous.     We  may  not  say  in  this  case  that  a  further 
superfluity  is  evident  in  the  invention  of  a  puer  not  elsewhere  used  m 
the  play,  although  in  my  opinion  it  is  true  :    the  puer  of  III,  i  is  not 
the  puer  of  I,  2  and  III,  2.     But,  however  that  may  be,  the  only  ex- 
planation of  the  //..r-scene  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  actor  who  played 
the  r61e  of  Pseudolus  also  took  the  part  of  either  BalHo  or  the  cook;  it 
must  have  been  the  cook,  for  elsewhere  Ballio  and  Pseudolus  appear  on 
the  stage  together.     This  is  the  assignment  of  roles  already  made  by 
Schmidt,^  but  based  only  on  the  matter  of  coincident  appearances  and 
harmony  of  roles.     The  temperaments  of  Pseudolus  and  the  cook  are 


sqq   Angeredete  kann  der  pedisequos  sein  (165  [=  170]  sq.,  235  [=  241]  sq.  u.  o.) 
Xtin'mittlerweile  aus  dem  Hause  Getretener.     Zu  Gunsten  des  Dichters  selbs 
mochte  man  daher  gerne  glauben,  dass  nicht  bios  768  R.,  sondem  die  ganze  Scene 
Tn'cht  ware,  eine  spatere  Schauspielerinterpolation  zum  Vergnugen  der  medngsten 
Klasse  des  Publicums,  etwa  wie  in  1061-1068  [  =  1079-1086] . 

PhUoL,  35  [1876],  173:  "Die  Scene  [III,  i]  ist  fOr  die  Komposition  des  Stucke. 

vollig  entbehrlich:    zur  Ausfullung  der  nothigen  Pause  zwischen  764  sqq ""d 

oo";      .  .  eeniigt  vollig  die  Scene  mit  dem  Koche  III,  2." 

I  Cf  iJo  '^ Nachrichien  d.  GWingen  Ges,  (1903),  352:  Der  fntte  Akt,  die 
grosse  Scene  Ballio's  mit  dem  Koch,  ist  auffallenderweise,  wie  Bierma  S  27  ff  •  nchtig 
fu'ahrt,  nur  durch  ein  unwesentliches  Moment  ausserlich  mit  der  Handlung  verbun- 
Tn;  w^rscheinllch  hat  dies  Moment,  die  Geburtsfeier  BaUio's,  ursprunghch  erne 
Bedeutung  fiir  die  Handlung  selbst. 
«  Op,  cit.y  34. 


A.  Henry  W.  Prescott 

manifestly  simflar,  and  so  highly  individualized  as  to  make  a  different 
distribution  difficult  in  a  small  troupe.  The  /«^r-scene  made  it  possible 
for  Pseudolus  to  retire  in  766  and  reappear  as  the  cook  m  790. 

Now  in  this  case  we  may  put  our  conclusion  to  an  immediate  test. 
For  Pseudolus  appears  in  IV,  i,  the  scene  immediately  following  the 
cook-scene.  If  the  cook  and  Pseudolus  are  played  by  the  same  actor, 
obviously  the  end  of  III,  2  must  reveal  the  provision  made  for  the  cook 
to  retire  and  reappear  in  the  next  scene  as  Pseudolus.  This  provision 
is  made  in  our  texts :  the  cook  retires  in  892  ;  Ballio  speaks  a  mono- 
logue, 892-904  ;  then  Pseudolus  appears  (905). 

If  I  am  right  we  have  discovered  four  passages  in  the  plays  that  were 
provided  primarily  to  facilitate  change  of  r61es.  The  number  of  verses 
in  such  passages  should  be  roughly  the  same,  making  some  allowance 
for  greater  difficulties  in  some  changes  as  compared  with  others ;  the 
figures  may  be  of  interest ;'  they  serve  a  practical  purpose  m  testing 
the  secondary  evidence  that  we  have  now  to  consider : 

Miles  Glo.  1378-93     •     •     »6  ^* 

CVj//.  909-21      ....     13 

Pseud.  767-89    .     .     .     •     23    " 

Pseud.  892-904 .  .  .  •  13 
The  fact  that  ten  more  verses  were  required  to  transform  Pseudolus 
into  the  cook  than  to  change  the  cook  back  to  Pseudolus  may  serve  to 
cheer  the  supporters  of  the  theory  that  the  /«<fr-scene  is  an  mterpola- 
tion  later  than  the  authentic  text  (but  cf.  for  the  length  of  the  passage 
Most.  408-30,  below,  p.  47).  It  is  equally  reasonable  to  assume  that 
the  second  change  was  less  difficult  than  the  first.    In  any  case,  without 


>  The  Beures  are  of  special  interest  in  comparison  with  the  length  of  the  pa^ges 
used  by  some  scholars  to  prove  the  distribution  of  roles  in  the  Greek  drama.  In  C&«. 
Journ.  VIII  (.8.3).  433-5,  Elmsley  remarks:  ••  It  appears  from  these  instances, 
a,at  the  recitation  of  twelve  or  fifteen  trimeter  iambics  aUowed  an  actor  sufficient  time 
to  retire,  to  change  his  dress,  and  return."  If  there  is  any  force  m  the  correspond- 
Le  (aild  I  doTot  wish  to  be  understood  as  committing  myself  to  the  rule  of  three 
actors  in  the  Greek  drama),  the  suggestions  of  Roemer  (/%./»/.,  65  [1906],  74)  «e 
weakened  by  the  much  greater  length  of  the  intervening  passage  in  the  Ajax  and  the 
AnHgon..  Cf.  also  Rees,  op.  cit.,  50  ff..  who  is  "  guided  by  the  s.tuat.on  m  mivd- 
ual  <ises,  .  .  ." !  he  objects,  however,  only  when  less  than  ten  verses  are  allowed 
for  a  change. 


Three  Yn^x-Scenes  in  Plautus,  and  the  Distribution  of  Roles     4S 

a  careful  study  of  style,  which  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  paper,  the 
question  of  authorship  in  any  of  these  /«^r-scenes  cannot  be  convmc- 
ingly  answered.      I  wish  to  note  two  negative  facts :    first,  none  of 
these  passages  shows  any  trace  of  Greek  influence  ;>  secondly,  apart 
from  the  style  there  is  nothing  in  the  form  and  content  of  the  passages 
that  militates  against  a  theory  of  interpolation  by  a  later  hand  for  the 
purpose  of  production  under  special  economic  conditions :  on  the  other 
hand,  such  craftsmanship  as  they  illustrate  seems  not  inconsistent  with 
the  manner  of  Plautus  as  evinced  in  other  features  of  his  style  and 
technique.     Whether  as  a  stage-hand  or  an  actor  in  AteUan  plays 
Plautus  probably  learned  the  practical  side  of  dramatic  composition; 
his  plays  show  that  such  practical  requirements  might  very  likely  be 
met  by  him  in  a  far  from  artistic  fashion.' 


IV 

There  are  certain  features  common  to  all  these  puer-scenes :  they 
are  short ;  they  employ  a  character  not  used  elsewhere  in  the  play ; 
they  do  not  advance  the  action ;  in  two  of  the  three  cases  they  are 
followed  by  scenes  that  require  the  largest  number  of  actors  employed 
in  any  scene  of  the  play.  Obviously  any  other  scenes  that  reveal  all 
these  features  may  repay  study.     Perhaps  tiie  question  has  already 


•  Cf.  Leo,  Dtr  Monolog,  59,  n.  2.  Karsten,  however  {Mnemos.,  31  [1903].  I54). 
differs  with  respect  to  the  />«.r.scene  in  the  Pieudolm  :  "  Forma  et  res  prorsus  grae- 
cae  sunt.  Actionem  fabulae  paud  hi  versus  nihU  promovent,  sed  neque  retment, 
idcirco  scenam.  quae  respondet  querelis  Syncerasti  in  Poenulo.  nee  Plauto  nee  graeco 
auctoreindignam  esse  censeo."  The  comparison  with  the  /'..«.  823  ft.  .s  not  .nap- 
propriate.  but  positive  evidence  of  a  Greek  source  is  wanting;  the  moUf  of  773-4  >s 
certainly  Greek,  but  who  shall  say  it  is  not  Roman? 

»  Leo, /%«/. /<'"<^*.,64ff.,  72ff.  ,^      ,        ,      . . 

3  I  mean  amply  that  the  incoherences  of  the  style  and  structure  of  the  plays  should 

lead  us  to  be  very  cautious  in  ascribing  to  other  hands  parts  of  the  plays  that  show  a 

weakness  in  organic  structure.    The  fact  that  Terence  reveals  nothing  analogous  to 

the  /«.r.scen«  may  point  in  one  of  many  directions:  either  to  a  d.fierence  m  text- 

tradWon,  or  a  difference  in  the  matter  of  dependence  upon  Greek  ongmak,  or 

fincludinE  the  previous  explanation)  a  difference  in  personahty  and  m  methods. 

Until  the'style  of  the /^..-scenes  is  proved  to  ^^  .f  "-\''°'".  ^ '^C' 'J  "^' 

indulge  my  predilection  for  the  last  explanation,  with  a  quahficat.on  that  the  J>u^- 

scenrin  the  Pseudolus  is  more  properly  suspected  than  the  other  two  scenes. 


4S 


Henry  W,  Prescott 


arisen  in  the  reader's  mind:  are  there  not  other  scenes  in  which  a 
minor  character,  not  a  puer,  appears  for  a  short  time?  This  is  quite 
true,  but  such  characters  and  scenes  usually  promote  the  action :  for 
example,  Halisca  in  Cist  IV,  2,  the  advorsitores  in  Most  IV,  i,  2. 
Other  scenes  fail  to  satisfy  all  the  requirements,  though  reproducing 
some  of  the  features :  the  choragus'^c^xit  in  the  Cure,  IV,  i  is  short, 
introduces  a  character  not  elsewhere  used,  and  is  a  stationary  scene, 
but  the  neighboring  scenes  show  that  it  does  not  facilitate  change  of 
roles,  but  simply  stops  a  gap  between  the  withdrawal  of  three  characters 
in  III,  I  and  the  return  of  the  same  characters  in  IV,  2  ;^  the  Lurchio- 
scene  in  the  Miles  (III,  2)  satisfies  most  of  the  requirements,  but  it  is 
too  long  to  serve  primarily  for  the  change  of  roles  and  is  sufficiently 
explained  by  the  contamination- theory  ;*  the //>^tfA?r^j-scene»  in  the 
Rudens  (II,  i)  may  very  likely  suggest  that  Ptolemocratia  (I,  5)  and 
Trachalio  (II,  2)  were  played  by  the  same  actor,  but  the  conditions  of 
the  three  scenes  do  not  make  this  explanation  inevitable ;  in  the  same 
play  the  lorani'^3s&z.%^  (821-838)  is  very  suspicious,  especially  as  so 
many  actors  are  required  in  the  next  scene  (III,  6),  but  again  the 
explanation  is  not  inevitable,  and  such  lorarii-sctnts  seem  rather  to  be 
for  comic  effect;*  the  convivium-sctnts  opening  the  fifth  act  of  the 
Asinaria  and  of  the  Persa  incidentally,  perhaps,  facilitate  change  of 
roles,  but  they  are  probably  derived  from  Greek  sources  and  primarily 
serve  other  purposes.* 


»  Leo,  Der  Monolog,  50,  n.  6.  «  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  166  ff. 

•  Leo,  Der  Monolog^  44. 

•  There  is  no  evidence  of  whipping  m  this  scene,  but  the  situation  and  the  threats 
probably  entertained  the  audience;  corporal  punishment  was  clearly  a  source  of  comic 
effect  m  ancient  comedy,  and  in  the  case  of  slaves  is  included  among  the  elements 
which  Aristophanes  pretends  to  have  banished  from  the  comic  stage  {Pax  743  ff.)  in 
spite  of  several  scenes  in  his  plays  that  point  to  the  contrary. 

•  In  the  Asinaria^  V,  i,  the  conviviunt'SctnQ  would  permit  Diabolus  to  become 
Artemona,  but  against  this  combination  cf.  Schmidt,  op,  cii.,  16,  22. 

In  the  Persa,  V,  i,  the  conmvmm-scene  would  permit  the  Ftrgo  to  become 
Paegnium.     This  combination  is  not  improbable;  cf.  Schmidt,  op.  cit,  32. 

In  both  cases  the  next  scene  requires  the  largest  number  of  actore  needed  in  any 
scene  of  the  play;  both  scenes  are  stop-gaps,  but  the  return  of  Dordalus  in  the  Persa 
is  not  motivated  as  is  the  advent  of  Artemona  in  the  Asinaria, 

Finally,  besides  serving  aU  these  other  purposes,  the  scenes  are.  unnecessarily  long 
for  a  change  of  roles,  and  are  analogous  in  content  to  l^o*  in  the  Old  Attic  Comedy 
(Leo,  Plaui.  Forsch,,  152). 


Three  VuGr-Scenes  in  PlautuSy  and  the  Distribution  of  Roles     47 

There  are,  however,  three  other  passages  that  may  properly  ser\^e  as 
secondary  evidence ;  if  one  grants  that  the  roles  were  distributed,  and 
accepts  a  reasonable  assignment  of  parts  for  these  three  plays,  the 
scenes  in  question  immediately  become  necessary  and  to  this  necessity 
their  existence  may  plausibly  be  referred. 

The  admirable  expository  scenes  of  the  first  act  of  the  Mostellaria 
are  familiar  to  every  student  of  Plautus.  Philolaches,  Callidamates, 
Philematium,  Delphium  are  in  the  midst  of  their  revelry  at  the  end  of 
the  first  act  when  Tranio  appears  with  the  news  of  the  father's  arrival. 
Act  II,  I,  therefore,  requires  five  actors,  the  largest  number  required  in 
any  scene  of  the  play.  Schmidt  shows  that  five  actors  might  easily 
have  carried  all  the  roles  of  the  play ;  in  this  case  the  theory  is  very 
plausible,  for  none  of  the  five  characters  needed  in  the  introductory 
scenes  reappears  except  Tranio  and  Callidamates,  and  the  reappearance 
of  the  latter  is  deferred  to  the  end  of  the  play.  The  father,  Theopro- 
pides,  appears  in  II,  2  ;  the  theory  requires  that  one  of  the  five  actors 
in  II,  I  shall  take  the  part  of  the  father  in  II,  2.  If  this  is  the  case 
the  structure  should  reveal  the  provision  made  for  the  change  of  roles. 
The  two  women  leave  the  stage  in  398 ;  a  short  conversation  follows 
between  Philolaches  and  Tranio  (398-406)  in  which  a  very  trivial  bit 
of  action  is  developed.  This  action  is  in  a  sense  essential :  the  house- 
door  must  be  locked  that  the  father  may  not  get  in  and  discover  the 
revellers ;  it  must  be  locked  on  the  outside  because  the  revellers  are 
irresponsible,  and  might  interfere  with  Tranio's  plans.  But  this  action 
hardly  requires  the  attention  given  to  it ;  Philolaches  might  have  the 
key  or  secure  it  by  giving  an  order  to  a  slave  within  the  house.  Instead 
of  this,  Philolaches  goes  into  the  house;  Tranio  soliloquizes  in  the 
fashion  of  the  intriguing  slave  ^  confident  of  success  (409-18)  ;  d.  puer 
appears  with  the  key  (419)  ;  after  a  short  dialogue,  Tranio  resumes  his 
monologue  (427-30)  ;  then  the  father  appears  (431).  It  seems  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  this  trivial  action  is  developed  to  allow  Philolaches 
to  become  Theopropides,  a  combination  for  which  Schmidt  (p.  32) 
provides ;  the  passage  (408-30  =  23  vv.)  is  of  the  length  required  for 
such  a  change  so  far  as  the  puer-scenes  set  a  standard.     The  early 


*  Leo,  Der  Mono/og,  72,  n.  12,  includes  some  of  these  monologues  under  the  head 
of  **  Oberlegung." 


48 


Henry  W,  Prescott 


departure  of  the  women  (398)  may  have  enabled  one  of  them  to  take 
the  part  of  the  puer>  But  the  difference  between  this  passage  and  the 
/^^r-scenes  is  important ;  here  the  puer  has  few  words  and  contributes 
to  the  action ;  the  monologue  of  Tranio  is  the  conventional  monologue 
of  the  arch-intriguer  before  he  puts  his  plans  into  operation ;  the  only 
suspicious  feature  is  the  trivial  nature  of  the  action.  The  technique  is 
less  difficult  to  parallel  than  that  of  the /«^r-scenes,  and  for  that  reason 
the  evidence  is  somewhat  less  positive. 

The  environment  of  all  scenes  that  require,  according  to  Schmidt's 
assignments,  the  entire  troupe  of  ac'tors  is  likely  to  test  his  theory,  but 
only  in  case  a  new  character  outside  of  the  maximum  number  appears 
in  the  preceding  or  following  scene.     Schmidt  shows  that  the  Mercator 
could  have  been  presented  by  four  actors.     The  entire  company,  there- 
fore, is  required  in  IV,  4,  in  which  Lysimachus,  Dorippa,  Syra,  and  a 
cook  appear  at  the  outset.     The  next  scene  (IV,  5)  brings  a  fifth, 
Eutychus,  on  the  stage.    The  structure  must  show  some  device  to  meet 
this  situation.     The  cook  and  his  attendants  withdraw  in  782 ;   Syra 
leaves  in  788;    Dorippa  leaves  before   792;    Lysimachus  delivers  a 
monologue,  793-802 ;  then  Syra  and  Eutychus  appear  (IV,  4).     Such 
a  structure  obviously  made  it  possible  for  either  the  cook  or  Dorippa  to 
take  the  role  of  Eutychus;  Schmidt «  with  some  hesitation  combines  the 
roles  of  Dorippa  and  Eutychus;    in  that  case  at  least  eleven  verses 
(792-802)   intervened  for  the   change   of   roles;    in   the  other  case 
twenty-three  verses  (782-802).     Both  harmony  of  roles  and  the  struc- 
ture seem  to  me  to  point  to  a  combination  of  Dorippa  and  the  young 
lover,  Charinus,  who  appears  in  830 ;  this  leaves  the  cook  and  Eutychus 
for  one  actor.     In  this  way  we  secure  the  obvious  fitness  of  combining 
a  woman's  part  and  that  of  a  sentimental  lover;  the  combination  of  the 
audacious  cook  and  the  lover  seems  more  difficult.     At  the  same  time 
by  this  combination  of  parts  we  allow  plenty  of  time  for  changes :  the 
cook  has  twenty-three  verses  in  which  to  become  Eutychus ;  Dorippa 
has  thirty-eight  verses  (792-829)  in  which  to  become  Charinus;  the 
greater  time  required  for  this  change  is  accounted  for  by  the  difficulty 

»  Fritzsche,  Quatuor  leges  scenicae  Graecorum  poeseos,  29  f!.,  notes  that  the  role 
of  the  puer  might  have  been  taken  by  some  one  of  the  actors  who  appeared  in  the 
previous  scene,  but  does  not  draw  any  further  inferences. 

*  Op,  cit,,  56,  cf.  30. 


Three  Vu^r-Scenes  in  Plautus,  and  the  Distribution  of  Roles     49 

of  shifting  from  the  role  of  a  woman  to  that  of  a  man ;  incidentally  the 
monologue  of  Syra  (817-29),  by  this  arrangement,  has  an  economic 
justification  in  addition  to  the  explanation  furnished  by  the  parabasis  of 
Greek  comedy  and  certain  passages  of  Euripides.^ 

Schmidt  has  not  carefully  worked  out  the  important  question  of 
supernumeraries.    It  does  not  seem  consistent  with  an  economic  theory 
to  suppose  that  the  parts  of  the  danista,  of  the  fidicina  Acropolistis,  of 
the  virgo  Telestis  in  the  Epidicus  were  taken  by  supernumeraries ;  all 
of  these  characters  speak  a  goodly  number  of  verses ;  by  his  arrange- 
ment Schmidt  brings  the  number  of  actors  down  to  four.     If  we  dis- 
tribute these  three  roles  among  the  regular  actors  the  troupe  need  be 
increased  only  to  five ;  and  in  that  case  the  structure  of  the  play  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  act  becomes  intelligible.     Act  IV,  2  presents 
three  speaking  characters;  in  the  course  of  the  next  scene  (V,  i)  four 
additional  speaking  characters  appear;    the  structure,  however,  easily 
provides  for  a  company  of  five  actors.     Acropolistis,  Periphanes,  and 
Philippa  remain  on  the  stage  through  practically  the  entire  scene  (IV, 
2)  ;  after  their  withdrawal  Stratippocles  and  Epidicus  appear  and  con- 
verse (607-19)  ;    then  the  danisia  and  Telestis  appear  (620)  ;    the 
danista  goes  out  in  647.     The  conversation,  or  rather  the  two  mono- 
logues and  the  conversation,  in  607-19  (again  thirteen  verses)  do  not 
advance   the   action   or   serve   any   other   discoverable   purpose   than 
to  provide  for  two  of  the  actors  in  the  previous  scene  to  assume  the 
roles  of  Telestis  and  the  danista.     The  possible  combinations  are  the 
roles  of  Acropolistis  and   Periphanes  and  Philippa^   in  the  previous 
scenes  with  the  roles  of  the  danista  and  Telestis  in  this  scene ;  it  is 
natural  to  assume  that  the  two  women,  Acropolistis  and  Telestis,  were 
played  by  one  actor,^  leaving  another  actor  the  roles  of  Periphanes  and 

»  This  monologue  is  rejected  by  Ribbeck  {Emend.  Merc,  Plaut.  Spicilegium,  13) 
and  by  Langen  (^Plaut.  Stud,,  312)  because  of  its  unfitness  and  stylistic  defects.  Leo, 
however  {Plaut.  Forsch.,  107  ff.),  successfully  defends  it  as  a  survival  of  "die  euripi- 
deische  Klage  "  {Med.  244  ff.,  Elect,  1036  ff.,  Med.  184  ff.). 

*  It  is  to  be  noted  that,  unless  there  is  a  pause  between  the  acts,  Schmidt's  com- 
bination of  Philippa  and  Epidicus  gives  Philippa  only  an  interval  of  six  verees  (604-9) 
in  which  to  make  the  change. 

^  This  assumption  rests  on  the  UkeUhood  that  the  parts  of  women  were  taken  by 
one  actor  so  far  as  possible;  in  several  plays,  however,  there  are  too  many  women 
to  admit  of  such  a  combination,  or  rather,  the  appearances  of  the  women  are  such  as 
to  prevent  this  combination. 


so 


Henry  W,  Prescott 


the  danista.  This  provides  thirteen  verses  for  both  changes.  Finally, 
it  should  be  noted  that  the  departure  of  the  danista  in  647  provides, 
perhaps,  for  his  return  as  Periphanes  in  666  (648-65  =  18  vv.). 

Doubtless  other  scenes  of  this  sort  might  be  discovered.^  I  have 
rejected  many,  and  chosen  these  three  as  offering  the  most  satisfactory 
secondary  evidence  available.  They  show  that  even  as  a  statement  of 
the  possibilities  Schmidt's  arrangements  may  be  improved  by  a  more 
careful  study  of  the  structure  of  the  plays.  Such  a  study  would  be 
indeed  audacious  but  for  the  truth  revealed  by  the  ///<?r-scenes.  They 
certainly  justify  the  statement  that  the  intelligent  appreciation  of  the 
technique  of  the  plays  of  Plautus  in  their  present  form  cannot  be 
realized  without  considering  this  phase  of  the  dramatic  production  of 
the  comedies.  It  is  in  this  aspect  of  the  problem  that  I  have  been 
interested ;  others  may  be  willing  to  apply  the  results  to  their  studies  in 
dramatic  antiquities  or  in  the  transmission  of  our  text  of  Plautus. 


»  An  investigation  of  the  subject  must  start  with  a  determination  of  the  theory  of  a 
pause  between  acts;  to  this  decision  I  think  the /w^r-scenes  make  some  contribution; 
possibly  such  a  structure  as  that  in  the  Epidicus  also  contributes  —  if  there  was  a 
pause,  why  this  structure?  Another  prelunmary  question  concerns  the  use  of  super- 
numeraries; in  some  cases  the  Internal  structure  may  determine  this  question.  When 
these  questions  are  settled,  the  structure  of  scenes  requiring  the  largest  number  of 
actors  in  connection  with  the  structure  of  preceding  and  folbwmg  scenes  is  a  natural 
subject  for  investigation,  but  only  in  case  the  surroundmg  scenes  require  new  roles: 
this  limits  the  field  considerably.  And  any  such  study  is  hardly  worth  while  unless 
the  reader  is  convinced  by  the  /«<?r-scenes  that  there  is  a  sufficient  basis  for  a  more 
serious  consideration  of  the  subject  than  Lorenz,  Dziatzko,  and  Hauler  admit. 


